linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] oom: Do not try to sacrifice small children
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:40:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160113094034.GC28942@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1601121646410.28831@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Tue 12-01-16 16:51:43, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > index 8bca0b1e97f7..b5c0021c6462 100644
> > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > @@ -721,8 +721,16 @@ try_to_sacrifice_child(struct oom_control *oc, struct task_struct *victim,
> >  	if (!child_victim)
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> > -	put_task_struct(victim);
> > -	victim = child_victim;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Protecting the parent makes sense only if killing the child
> > +	 * would release at least some memory (at least 1MB).
> > +	 */
> > +	if (K(victim_points) >= 1024) {
> > +		put_task_struct(victim);
> > +		victim = child_victim;
> > +	} else {
> > +		put_task_struct(child_victim);
> > +	}
> >  
> >  out:
> >  	return victim;
> 
> The purpose of sacrificing a child has always been to prevent a process 
> that has been running with a substantial amount of work done from being 
> terminated and losing all that work if it can be avoided.  This happens a 
> lot: imagine a long-living front end client forking a child which simply 
> collects stats and malloc information at a regular intervals and writes 
> them out to disk or over the network.  These processes may be quite small, 
> and we're willing to happily sacrifice them if it will save the parent.  
> This was, and still is, the intent of the sacrifice in the first place.

Yes I understand the intention of the heuristic. I am just contemplating
about what is way too small to sacrifice because it clearly doesn't make
much sense to kill a task which is sitting on basically no memory (well
just few pages backing page tables and stack) because this would just
prolong the OOM agony.

> We must be able to deal with oom victims that are very small, since 
> userspace has complete control in prioritizing these processes in the 
> first place.

Sure the patch is not great but I would like to come up with some
threshold when children are way too small to be worthwhile considering.
Or maybe there is other measure we can use.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-13  9:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-12 21:00 [RFC 0/3] oom: few enahancements Michal Hocko
2016-01-12 21:00 ` [RFC 1/3] oom, sysrq: Skip over oom victims and killed tasks Michal Hocko
2016-01-13  0:41   ` David Rientjes
2016-01-13  9:30     ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-14  0:38       ` David Rientjes
2016-01-14 11:00         ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-14 21:51           ` David Rientjes
2016-01-15 10:12             ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-15 15:37               ` One Thousand Gnomes
2016-01-19 23:01                 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-19 22:57               ` David Rientjes
2016-01-20  9:49                 ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-21  0:01                   ` David Rientjes
2016-01-21  9:15                     ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-12 21:00 ` [RFC 2/3] oom: Do not sacrifice already OOM killed children Michal Hocko
2016-01-13  0:45   ` David Rientjes
2016-01-13  9:36     ` Michal Hocko
2016-01-14  0:42       ` David Rientjes
2016-01-12 21:00 ` [RFC 3/3] oom: Do not try to sacrifice small children Michal Hocko
2016-01-13  0:51   ` David Rientjes
2016-01-13  9:40     ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-01-14  0:43       ` David Rientjes

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160113094034.GC28942@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).